Official Super Six Follow Live Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oakleyno1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eagle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oakleyno1

ok then if dirrell gets a point taken for holding in every round because he HELD ALOT and no one will disagree even if you think he won. But yes if dirrell gets a point taken off every round for holding then i will score it even because dirrell landed more. For the record i think dirrell is a far better fighter but didnt do enough to take a champs belt by holding etc

---

Well what about Frochs rabbit punching. You gonna take points off for that?

---

the rabbit punches were a result of the holding - if the holding wasnt there they wouldnt of occured. i agree froch fought like someone from fucking ufc in there lol but the referee did not do his job properly - yes he broke them up reasonably well but you have to take points off eventually and it would of been ridiculous if he had taken off points against froch if he wasnt for dirrells holding.

---

guess the 2 cheap shots after the break and the 2 body slams don't count for anything :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rela

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rela

Good decision.

Some might like runners and huggers.

I don't.

---

You must not like rules either. Or scoring. Why bother even having them and just give the fight to what and who we prefer and save a lot of time without stepping in the ring.

---

There was only one person who wanted to fight seriously.

Hey, if you like the way Dirrel fights, that's fine.

Personally, I like boxing, not cycling, running or wrestling.

It's a fight.

---

if someone lands 3 punches and then literally starts doing laps around the ring full speed non stop for the remainder of the rd and isnt hit they still out landed the opponent


also clinching doesnt detract from the punches you land... thats what the point deduction is for (not that it was warranted)


its not up to the judges to decide someone is holding too much and start ignoring punches they land

The point deduction was a joke. The decision was a joke. Froch landed nothing.

Dirrell should have stayed conventional more. If he hadn't switch so much, he would left no doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I think you guys are overestimating the 'robbery'

The first 8 or 9 rounds ok Froch looked awkward but what did Dirrell do apart from dodge punches?

It WAS a close fight imo, kind of like the first Sam Peter James Toney fight.

Dirrell was techinically much better and landed the better shots, but about three quarters of the fight was Froch pressing which obviosly is worth something.

The point was bullshit though, not sure if that affected the scores, I dont think it does as Froch had two 115-113 but it shouldnt have happened.

Dirrell can leave feeling he gave a good performance but too timid, Froch needs to work on a LOT though and can count himself very lucky tonight.

Dirrell is a CLASS ACT in the post fight interview though, I really hope he can bounce back from this.

---

A perfect example of why computer scoring wouldn't work even by your standards. No way Froch outlanded Dirrell.

---

My suggestion of computer scoring was to prevent crazy robberies where one fighter clearly won according to the rest of the world but was robbed by blind or corrupt judges.

If the computer gave the fight to Dirrell on accuracy here who would complain? It was a very close that could have gone either way.

My argument wasn't that a computer would be more accurate in all cases but more consistently accurate over the majority of the cases, and where it would have problems would be in very close fights such as this where ultimately it doesnt matter which side it chooses.

A computer would have a certain bias its true but judges have waaaaaaay more.


You had 100 fights judged by a computer and 100 the traditional way my bet is you would have far less fans crying robbery in the computer scoring fights.

However I think MORE fighters might complain if the computer was judge, easier to say they were robbed by silicon than a man.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bzkfn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

Yea it'sa fight, and Froch got outboxed, all fight. Whether he is going forward or backwards, he still outlanded and outboxed consistantly more. Trying to rewrite the rules of boxing as Froch is trying suggest...'this is what the fans wanted to see'...is that how it goes? well, yea, they are homers, ofc they want him to win. Try asking the fans around the world.

---

Hold on? You want to see either of them fight like that again? That was an awful fight.

---

what point are you trying to make? how does if it was a good fight or not affect who should win it?

---

Well Froch saying the fans wanted to see a fight. You seem to be suggesting that what Dirrell did tonight was fight. And he didn't. I honestly didn't see him do much more than Carl in there. Wish this was HBO so we could get some instant punchstats. I don't understand the fuss here. That was hardly a robbery. Neither of them did anything of note. I feel shortchanged because performances like this are why fans turn away from boxing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

WTF?! His Grandaddy told him that he needed a knock out going into the last?!!

What fight was he watching!

What fight was i watching.... Fuk i mconfused :confused: :-\

---

He knew his grand son was winning. But he also knew the judges were in the pocket

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rela

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Froch was great in any way. Dirrel had a spoiler plan and did a good job.

But I won't be buying Direl's back catelogue of fights any time soon.

---

Well if it makes you feel any better...I think Froch is total shit and should have been deducted more then 1 pt, late blows, rabbit punches, and still lost in spite of all of that, as you'll prob find the majority agrees. So I guess we are even there in disrespect for styles. And I can safely tell you I didn't have a favorite going in. Did you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Lust For Violent D

I can't wait until the next round when Froch has to fight Kessler. Kessler will really expose him.

---

I can't wait to see a fight where two people want to fight.

Kessler v Froch will be a great fight. I think you are right to an extent. I make Kessler favourite, but it'll be a cracker.

No-one will bring their bike, no one will be constantly holding, we'll see an entertaining fight for sure.

kinda leaves a bad taste... both fighters deserved the loss IMO...

luckly for us they were only fighting to see who gets 5th and 6th place.

best moment of the night had to be the crotch comment ;D;D;D

To paraphrase the great Marvin Hagler, "I try not to let the fight go to the judges, my 2 fists will be my judges." I can see why he felt that way after getting robbed in a few championship matches.

They both defenetly did little but i think Dirrell landed cleaner and better shots and defenetly landed more.
So i think Dirrell was robbed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bzkfn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bzkfn

Hold on? You want to see either of them fight like that again? That was an awful fight.

---

what point are you trying to make? how does if it was a good fight or not affect who should win it?

---

Well Froch saying the fans wanted to see a fight. You seem to be suggesting that what Dirrell did tonight was fight. And he didn't. I honestly didn't see him do much more than Carl in there. Wish this was HBO so we could get some instant punchstats. I don't understand the fuss here. That was hardly a robbery. Neither of them did anything of note. I feel shortchanged because performances like this are why fans turn away from boxing.

---

Pretty much my opinion. I think people are preoccupied with saying Carl will fail because he is so easy to be outboxed and misses wildy.

So they see him miss and claim he's losing the fight. But that isn't the whole story, yes he's missing a lot but for most of the fight he was the only one fighting.

He won ugly and his style was exposed again, but he still did more work. You have to beat a man to beat a man and dodging a punch and holding doesn't mean you are scoring more than the man throwing the punch.

I mean you get points for defence and also points for aggression is how I always understood it.

Dirrell got points for defence and making Froch look wild, Froch got points for aggression and making the fight, it balances out.

You can't really say Froch was beat because Dirrell didn't do much.

He had a couple of very good rounds imo and hurt Froch once, but I don't have a problem with Froch winning the majority of the others because Dirrell although he made Froch look silly didn't follow up with anything at all himself.

Fraud's mom was crying ringside. His girlfriend was already taking her panties off in Dirrell's locker room. Even they knew Fraud lost

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pacdbest2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pacdbest2

I'll take Abraham by rd 7 KO & Froch by squeky SD decision.

---

Pacstradamus strike again!!!

---

Fuck off.

1- Very, very ugly fight.
2- For all those who picked on Froch or Dirrell to win the tournament: Wrong choice !!!
3- Froch lost !
4- And he called out Calzaghe. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I think you guys are overestimating the 'robbery'

The first 8 or 9 rounds ok Froch looked awkward but what did Dirrell do apart from dodge punches?

It WAS a close fight imo, kind of like the first Sam Peter James Toney fight.

Dirrell was techinically much better and landed the better shots, but about three quarters of the fight was Froch pressing which obviosly is worth something.

The point was bullshit though, not sure if that affected the scores, I dont think it does as Froch had two 115-113 but it shouldnt have happened.

Dirrell can leave feeling he gave a good performance but too timid, Froch needs to work on a LOT though and can count himself very lucky tonight.

Dirrell is a CLASS ACT in the post fight interview though, I really hope he can bounce back from this.

---

A perfect example of why computer scoring wouldn't work even by your standards. No way Froch outlanded Dirrell.

---

My suggestion of computer scoring was to prevent crazy robberies where one fighter clearly won according to the rest of the world but was robbed by blind or corrupt judges.

If the computer gave the fight to Dirrell on accuracy here who would complain? It was a very close that could have gone either way.

My argument wasn't that a computer would be more accurate in all cases but more consistently accurate over the majority of the cases, and where it would have problems would be in very close fights such as this where ultimately it doesnt matter which side it chooses.

A computer would have a certain bias its true but judges have waaaaaaay more.


You had 100 fights judged by a computer and 100 the traditional way my bet is you would have far less fans crying robbery in the computer scoring fights.

However I think MORE fighters might complain if the computer was judge, easier to say they were robbed by silicon than a man.....

---

You would be hard pressed to find more than two rounds that Froch outlanded Dirrell you would have scorecards reading 117-110 Dirrell (because of the point deduction). I challenge you to find anyone that would say that was a fair judgement of the fight. Impact matters, aggression matters, all of the things that a computer would be unable to calculate. So it doesn't solve the robbery cries that tend to follow pretty much every decision nowadays.

one positive thing...


i like antonio tarver as a commentator




sadly i expect there a real good chance andre ward will be robbed real badly too


and its gonna be real hard for dirrell to get a decision in germany

Boxing judging once again sucks. Fuck ya all. Im going to go play Farmville.

:fyou:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I think you guys are overestimating the 'robbery'

The first 8 or 9 rounds ok Froch looked awkward but what did Dirrell do apart from dodge punches?

It WAS a close fight imo, kind of like the first Sam Peter James Toney fight.

Dirrell was techinically much better and landed the better shots, but about three quarters of the fight was Froch pressing which obviosly is worth something.

The point was bullshit though, not sure if that affected the scores, I dont think it does as Froch had two 115-113 but it shouldnt have happened.

Dirrell can leave feeling he gave a good performance but too timid, Froch needs to work on a LOT though and can count himself very lucky tonight.

Dirrell is a CLASS ACT in the post fight interview though, I really hope he can bounce back from this.

---

What rounds did you score for Froch?

---

I didn't score it on a round by round but I never felt any rounds were really decisive.

I think there is a lot of Froch hate on the boards and a lot of attention on his ugly fighting style and looking awkward against fast, slick opponents.

He certainly DID look awkward and missed wildly at time but at the same time Froch made the fight. He was constantly coming forward and throwing punches, and Dirrell mostly dodged and held on. He only came back with anything later in the fight, the championship rounds.

Let me ask you this, if one fighter comes forward for a whole round, throws punches and misses, but the other fighter doesn't come forward at all, and just dodged, who wins the round?

That is the question really, yes Dirrell made Froch look bad at times but he didn't do anything offensively himself in most of the rounds.

In such cases I guess two of the judges went for the fighter who was at least pressing the action and throwing punches.

I don't think it was a robbery, I think it could have gone either way.

Dirrell was a class act after the fight, Froch did what every puncher did after the fight and blamed his erratic style on his opponent's running.

Clearly the commentators, the judges and the other ringside reporters judging all scored it a very very close fight.

Opinions on here tend to be biased a bit and I think people have overreacted a bit on the robbery.

If Dirrell would have won it would have been totally fair though as well. Close fight.

---

At last someone that talks sense, I did not enjoy the fight and thought that scoring it would be extremely difficult. Personally I didn't have Carl winning (I had it 114-114) but I'm not surprised it went the way it did as he was the defending champion.

P.s And I am a Froch fan!

Dirrell clearly deserved the fight imo.

Although Dirrell clinched often what Froch was doing in the clinches was far worse with his rabbit punching and using his elbows, he also starting practicing his judo half way through the fight :)

Besides the rough tatics, clinching, etc Dirrell did land the cleaner shots throughout the fight and was the busier fighter in the early parts of the fight and he clearly won the late rounds. Froch landed about two clean punches the whole night, a very bad performance by Carl.

Shit I just woke up! Did I totally miss everything?? :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SalTheButcher

one positive thing...


i like antonio tarver as a commentator




sadly i expect there a real good chance andre ward will be robbed real badly too


and its gonna be real hard for dirrell to get a decision in germany

---

ward will be fighting in oakland

what a sh1t fight, Dirrell should have got the nod but then again he only has himself to blame for not throwing more, he had no trouble hitting Froch but choose to run and hold :confused: both these guys are getting ko'd next round

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

A perfect example of why computer scoring wouldn't work even by your standards. No way Froch outlanded Dirrell.

---

My suggestion of computer scoring was to prevent crazy robberies where one fighter clearly won according to the rest of the world but was robbed by blind or corrupt judges.

If the computer gave the fight to Dirrell on accuracy here who would complain? It was a very close that could have gone either way.

My argument wasn't that a computer would be more accurate in all cases but more consistently accurate over the majority of the cases, and where it would have problems would be in very close fights such as this where ultimately it doesnt matter which side it chooses.

A computer would have a certain bias its true but judges have waaaaaaay more.


You had 100 fights judged by a computer and 100 the traditional way my bet is you would have far less fans crying robbery in the computer scoring fights.

However I think MORE fighters might complain if the computer was judge, easier to say they were robbed by silicon than a man.....

---

You would be hard pressed to find more than two rounds that Froch outlanded Dirrell you would have scorecards reading 117-110 Dirrell (because of the point deduction). I challenge you to find anyone that would say that was a fair judgement of the fight. Impact matters, aggression matters, all of the things that a computer would be unable to calculate. So it doesn't solve the robbery cries that tend to follow pretty much every decision nowadays.

---

Well most on here would here would think scores of 117-110 Dirrell would be highly accurate it seems ;D

Anway I think you underestimate what computers could potentially do. Why do you assume they couldn't calculate aggression and other subtle things relating to the fight?

A computer is capable of much more than just registering whether a punch lands like, like some kind of counter.

They can do all kinds of things with computers these days and if research was put into it I bet they could in time make a computer that virtually removed the subjective aspect of scoring entirely.

They could track who pressed the most and who was backed up as easily as they can track possession times in a football video game, motion cameras and sensors could be set up, all kinds of data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomcy03

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

What rounds did you score for Froch?

---

I didn't score it on a round by round but I never felt any rounds were really decisive.

I think there is a lot of Froch hate on the boards and a lot of attention on his ugly fighting style and looking awkward against fast, slick opponents.

He certainly DID look awkward and missed wildly at time but at the same time Froch made the fight. He was constantly coming forward and throwing punches, and Dirrell mostly dodged and held on. He only came back with anything later in the fight, the championship rounds.

Let me ask you this, if one fighter comes forward for a whole round, throws punches and misses, but the other fighter doesn't come forward at all, and just dodged, who wins the round?

That is the question really, yes Dirrell made Froch look bad at times but he didn't do anything offensively himself in most of the rounds.

In such cases I guess two of the judges went for the fighter who was at least pressing the action and throwing punches.

I don't think it was a robbery, I think it could have gone either way.

Dirrell was a class act after the fight, Froch did what every puncher did after the fight and blamed his erratic style on his opponent's running.

Clearly the commentators, the judges and the other ringside reporters judging all scored it a very very close fight.

Opinions on here tend to be biased a bit and I think people have overreacted a bit on the robbery.

If Dirrell would have won it would have been totally fair though as well. Close fight.

---

At last someone that talks sense, I did not enjoy the fight and thought that scoring it would be extremely difficult. Personally I didn't have Carl winning (I had it 114-114) but I'm not surprised it went the way it did as he was the defending champion.

P.s And I am a Froch fan!

---

Then you did have Froch winning 114-113 or did you have an even round? Don't forget the point deduction

Dirrell should've won. But a lot of things come down to how well you present yourself, and its true you dont win belts with a cry baby attitude.

I think Dirrell will own the division in a few years anyway. He looks like p4p material.

I see noway Froch was winnin this fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

My suggestion of computer scoring was to prevent crazy robberies where one fighter clearly won according to the rest of the world but was robbed by blind or corrupt judges.

If the computer gave the fight to Dirrell on accuracy here who would complain? It was a very close that could have gone either way.

My argument wasn't that a computer would be more accurate in all cases but more consistently accurate over the majority of the cases, and where it would have problems would be in very close fights such as this where ultimately it doesnt matter which side it chooses.

A computer would have a certain bias its true but judges have waaaaaaay more.


You had 100 fights judged by a computer and 100 the traditional way my bet is you would have far less fans crying robbery in the computer scoring fights.

However I think MORE fighters might complain if the computer was judge, easier to say they were robbed by silicon than a man.....

---

You would be hard pressed to find more than two rounds that Froch outlanded Dirrell you would have scorecards reading 117-110 Dirrell (because of the point deduction). I challenge you to find anyone that would say that was a fair judgement of the fight. Impact matters, aggression matters, all of the things that a computer would be unable to calculate. So it doesn't solve the robbery cries that tend to follow pretty much every decision nowadays.

---

Well most on here would here would think scores of 117-110 Dirrell would be highly accurate it seems ;D

Anway I think you underestimate what computers could potentially do. Why do you assume they couldn't calculate aggression and other subtle things relating to the fight?

A computer is capable of much more than just registering whether a punch lands like, like some kind of counter.

They can do all kinds of things with computers these days and if research was put into it I bet they could in time make a computer that virtually removed the subjective aspect of scoring entirely.

They could track who pressed the most and who was backed up as easily as they can track possession times in a football video game, motion cameras and sensors could be set up, all kinds of data.

---

Dirrell 117-110 would of been the right score if no judges were in the pocket

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SalTheButcher

one positive thing...


i like antonio tarver as a commentator




sadly i expect there a real good chance andre ward will be robbed real badly too


and its gonna be real hard for dirrell to get a decision in germany

---

From what I saw, it will be very hard for Dirrell to get a decision anywhere against Abraham.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

My suggestion of computer scoring was to prevent crazy robberies where one fighter clearly won according to the rest of the world but was robbed by blind or corrupt judges.

If the computer gave the fight to Dirrell on accuracy here who would complain? It was a very close that could have gone either way.

My argument wasn't that a computer would be more accurate in all cases but more consistently accurate over the majority of the cases, and where it would have problems would be in very close fights such as this where ultimately it doesnt matter which side it chooses.

A computer would have a certain bias its true but judges have waaaaaaay more.


You had 100 fights judged by a computer and 100 the traditional way my bet is you would have far less fans crying robbery in the computer scoring fights.

However I think MORE fighters might complain if the computer was judge, easier to say they were robbed by silicon than a man.....

---

You would be hard pressed to find more than two rounds that Froch outlanded Dirrell you would have scorecards reading 117-110 Dirrell (because of the point deduction). I challenge you to find anyone that would say that was a fair judgement of the fight. Impact matters, aggression matters, all of the things that a computer would be unable to calculate. So it doesn't solve the robbery cries that tend to follow pretty much every decision nowadays.

---

Well most on here would here would think scores of 117-110 Dirrell would be highly accurate it seems ;D

Anway I think you underestimate what computers could potentially do. Why do you assume they couldn't calculate aggression and other subtle things relating to the fight?

A computer is capable of much more than just registering whether a punch lands like, like some kind of counter.

They can do all kinds of things with computers these days and if research was put into it I bet they could in time make a computer that virtually removed the subjective aspect of scoring entirely.

They could track who pressed the most and who was backed up as easily as they can track possession times in a football video game, motion cameras and sensors could be set up, all kinds of data.

---

Because I make sensors that feed data to computers for a living and am quite aware of what is possible, I attend annual conferences so hardware engineers can discuss what is on the "cutting edge" and what they hope to achieve with new said technologies. I think you overestimate what is possible what you are talking about is unrealistic by today's standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

I hate to say it but Froch makes a good point.

---

I agree, and I also agree with Killersheeps comments earlier in this thread.

Dirrell was ugly, ugly ugly. He was diving around on the canvas repeatedly for nothing and he was holding like he wanted to bear Froch's children. He did get warned repeatedly and eventually a point was taken. Froch did hit on the back of the head, but I agree with him doing that. Fighters who hold excessively or lean down too much need to be hit somehow and that's what Froch did. I have no qualms with any fighter trying to make the fight and that's what Froch was trying to do. Maybe a point could have come off of him, but the excessive holding and bending below the waist was what was forcing Froch to bend the rules. Dirrell started the cheating each time and deserved the penalty first in my eyes.

It was scrappy fight, with a number of very close rounds. In those instances I favour the fighter who is trying to make the fight rather than the one who pot shots a couple of times and holds and dives to the canvas. At least Malignaggi was throwing a lot of leather and landing more than here and there in his fight with Diaz. Here Dirrell was landing at very irregular intervals with a lot of ugly nonsense inbetween. I frown upon the blatant cheating. Excessive holding is the worst thing in boxing for me.

Froch fought poorly too IMO. He couldn't cut off the ring and he should have had Dirrell on the ropes more and tried to be more concise with his punching. There was too much following around with hands held low.

I would be content with a draw and felt the scorecards were a little wide. But overall I preferred Froch's aggression so give him the nod. It might not be the popular view around here, but I don't care about being popular. I say what I think.

Abraham is fighting Dirrell in America. I think Abraham will watch that and be thinking he has to knock Dirrell out or he'll lose on the cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomcy03

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I didn't score it on a round by round but I never felt any rounds were really decisive.

I think there is a lot of Froch hate on the boards and a lot of attention on his ugly fighting style and looking awkward against fast, slick opponents.

He certainly DID look awkward and missed wildly at time but at the same time Froch made the fight. He was constantly coming forward and throwing punches, and Dirrell mostly dodged and held on. He only came back with anything later in the fight, the championship rounds.

Let me ask you this, if one fighter comes forward for a whole round, throws punches and misses, but the other fighter doesn't come forward at all, and just dodged, who wins the round?

That is the question really, yes Dirrell made Froch look bad at times but he didn't do anything offensively himself in most of the rounds.

In such cases I guess two of the judges went for the fighter who was at least pressing the action and throwing punches.

I don't think it was a robbery, I think it could have gone either way.

Dirrell was a class act after the fight, Froch did what every puncher did after the fight and blamed his erratic style on his opponent's running.

Clearly the commentators, the judges and the other ringside reporters judging all scored it a very very close fight.

Opinions on here tend to be biased a bit and I think people have overreacted a bit on the robbery.

If Dirrell would have won it would have been totally fair though as well. Close fight.

---

At last someone that talks sense, I did not enjoy the fight and thought that scoring it would be extremely difficult. Personally I didn't have Carl winning (I had it 114-114) but I'm not surprised it went the way it did as he was the defending champion.

P.s And I am a Froch fan!

---

Then you did have Froch winning 114-113 or did you have an even round? Don't forget the point deduction

---

How did you see it Killersheep?

On reflection I don't think either deserved to win, Froch looked sloppy, missed wildly and used rough house tactics, but constantly pressed the fight and was the aggressor throughout.

Dirrell made Froch looked slow and ungainly and dodged a lot of the punches thrown, but did very little offensively, backpeddled virtually the entire fight and held an awful lot.

On the plus sides.

Froch once again showed a real will to win and a hunger. He kept coming forward, wanting to make a fight of it.

Dirrell showed excellent movement, sharp quick counterpunching and a great defence.


Ultimately its always been said you need to wrest the belt off the champion and in no way did Dirrell do that, he did a great job of surviving and looked extremely comfortable in fact, but he didn't comeback with much except in a couple of rounds where he clearly looked the sharper.

I think Dirrell could have won if he would have engaged more, although then I guess he would fighting Carl's fight giving him better chances too.

I'm just pumped for Froch Arthur, I believe that is next?

That will be a war. I think Abraham does most things better than Carl, but Abraham isn't as fast or elusive as Jermain and Andre so Froch will be able to get his punches off too. Great matchup.

I had it 8 rounds to 4 for Dirrell without regarding the point deduction. So I ended up having it 7-4-1 for Dirrell with the point taken into the scoring.

I also thought I was being generous to Froch. :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomcy03

At last someone that talks sense, I did not enjoy the fight and thought that scoring it would be extremely difficult. Personally I didn't have Carl winning (I had it 114-114) but I'm not surprised it went the way it did as he was the defending champion.

P.s And I am a Froch fan!

---

Then you did have Froch winning 114-113 or did you have an even round? Don't forget the point deduction

---

How did you see it Killersheep?

On reflection I don't think either deserved to win, Froch looked sloppy, missed wildly and used rough house tactics, but constantly pressed the fight and was the aggressor throughout.

Dirrell made Froch looked slow and ungainly and dodged a lot of the punches thrown, but did very little offensively, backpeddled virtually the entire fight and held an awful lot.

On the plus sides.

Froch once again showed a real will to win and a hunger. He kept coming forward, wanting to make a fight of it.

Dirrell showed excellent movement, sharp quick counterpunching and a great defence.


Ultimately its always been said you need to wrest the belt off the champion and in no way did Dirrell do that, he did a great job of surviving and looked extremely comfortable in fact, but he didn't comeback with much except in a couple of rounds where he clearly looked the sharper.

I think Dirrell could have won if he would have engaged more, although then I guess he would fighting Carl's fight giving him better chances too.

I'm just pumped for Froch Arthur, I believe that is next?

That will be a war. I think Abraham does most things better than Carl, but Abraham isn't as fast or elusive as Jermain and Andre so Froch will be able to get his punches off too. Great matchup.

---

I had it 6-5 Dirrell, I lost my stream in the 3rd so I couldn't assess that round, damn computer lost connection. I absolutely think that Dirrell had tons of opportunities to land those amazing combos and didn't take them enough. Froch never looked in control except for a few moments in that fight. I agree that neither fighter did look that convincing, I don't think this was a robbery.

Abraham makes Froch look a complete novice..well.He refused himself his best chance vs Dirrell.Sat there second guessing.Think Kess or Arthur do a number on him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

You would be hard pressed to find more than two rounds that Froch outlanded Dirrell you would have scorecards reading 117-110 Dirrell (because of the point deduction). I challenge you to find anyone that would say that was a fair judgement of the fight. Impact matters, aggression matters, all of the things that a computer would be unable to calculate. So it doesn't solve the robbery cries that tend to follow pretty much every decision nowadays.

---

Well most on here would here would think scores of 117-110 Dirrell would be highly accurate it seems ;D

Anway I think you underestimate what computers could potentially do. Why do you assume they couldn't calculate aggression and other subtle things relating to the fight?

A computer is capable of much more than just registering whether a punch lands like, like some kind of counter.

They can do all kinds of things with computers these days and if research was put into it I bet they could in time make a computer that virtually removed the subjective aspect of scoring entirely.

They could track who pressed the most and who was backed up as easily as they can track possession times in a football video game, motion cameras and sensors could be set up, all kinds of data.

---

Because I make sensors that feed data to computers for a living and am quite aware of what is possible, I attend annual conferences so hardware engineers can discuss what is on the "cutting edge" and what they hope to achieve with new said technologies. I think you overestimate what is possible what you are talking about is unrealistic by today's standards.

---

You know it's ironic, when I discussed Obama policy with Jazmerkin it turned out he was a journalist, when I discussed geology with Salty it turned out he was a geologist and now I am discussing computer sensors with a man who makes them for a living.

Oh and when I went on about chess it turned out ICB was a chess prodigy at school who could beat grandmasters.

It seems I always come up against an expert in whatever field I talk about.

Talented folks here on Saddos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

My suggestion of computer scoring was to prevent crazy robberies where one fighter clearly won according to the rest of the world but was robbed by blind or corrupt judges.

If the computer gave the fight to Dirrell on accuracy here who would complain? It was a very close that could have gone either way.

My argument wasn't that a computer would be more accurate in all cases but more consistently accurate over the majority of the cases, and where it would have problems would be in very close fights such as this where ultimately it doesnt matter which side it chooses.


A computer would have a certain bias its true but judges have waaaaaaay more.


You had 100 fights judged by a computer and 100 the traditional way my bet is you would have far less fans crying robbery in the computer scoring fights.

However I think MORE fighters might complain if the computer was judge, easier to say they were robbed by silicon than a man.....

---

You would be hard pressed to find more than two rounds that Froch outlanded Dirrell you would have scorecards reading 117-110 Dirrell (because of the point deduction). I challenge you to find anyone that would say that was a fair judgement of the fight. Impact matters, aggression matters, all of the things that a computer would be unable to calculate. So it doesn't solve the robbery cries that tend to follow pretty much every decision nowadays.

---

Well most on here would here would think scores of 117-110 Dirrell would be highly accurate it seems ;D

Anway I think you underestimate what computers could potentially do. Why do you assume they couldn't calculate aggression and other subtle things relating to the fight?

A computer is capable of much more than just registering whether a punch lands like, like some kind of counter.

They can do all kinds of things with computers these days and if research was put into it I bet they could in time make a computer that virtually removed the subjective aspect of scoring entirely.

They could track who pressed the most and who was backed up as easily as they can track possession times in a football video game, motion cameras and sensors could be set up, all kinds of data.

---

117-110 sound right. I can give Froch 4. Considering that Froch was fight the likes of Dan Westerman and Brian Magee at this stage of his career, Dirrell did pretty well to leave Froch's hometown with a split loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Well most on here would here would think scores of 117-110 Dirrell would be highly accurate it seems ;D

Anway I think you underestimate what computers could potentially do. Why do you assume they couldn't calculate aggression and other subtle things relating to the fight?

A computer is capable of much more than just registering whether a punch lands like, like some kind of counter.

They can do all kinds of things with computers these days and if research was put into it I bet they could in time make a computer that virtually removed the subjective aspect of scoring entirely.

They could track who pressed the most and who was backed up as easily as they can track possession times in a football video game, motion cameras and sensors could be set up, all kinds of data.

---

Because I make sensors that feed data to computers for a living and am quite aware of what is possible, I attend annual conferences so hardware engineers can discuss what is on the "cutting edge" and what they hope to achieve with new said technologies. I think you overestimate what is possible what you are talking about is unrealistic by today's standards.

---

You know it's ironic, when I discussed Obama policy with Jazmerkin it turned out he was a journalist, when I discussed geology with Salty it turned out he was a geologist and now I am discussing computer sensors with a man who makes them for a living.

Oh and when I went on about chess it turned out ICB was a chess prodigy at school who could beat grandmasters.

It seems I always come up against an expert in whatever field I talk about.

Talented folks here on Saddos.

---

I certainly wouldn't say I'm the expert, but in fairness my knowledge in what your talking about is equal to your knowledge in chess. I like how you add the air of suspicion around the three of us by adding ICB in the mix as well. I know it's hard to understand, but some of us have to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sumkalambay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SalTheButcher

one positive thing...


i like antonio tarver as a commentator




sadly i expect there a real good chance andre ward will be robbed real badly too


and its gonna be real hard for dirrell to get a decision in germany

---

ward will be fighting in oakland

---

oh shit...


thats fantastic :D